• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social/Ethical issues should be decided by...

Social/Ethical issues should be decided by...

  • The Federal Government

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Individual States

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • There should be a mixture of authority between the two

    Votes: 13 86.7%
  • Total voters
    15
digsbe

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,630
Reaction score
14,981
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Should social/ethical issues be decided by the states or by the federal government? Should states make laws in regards to abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of certain drugs, and other issues of the like? Or should the federal government make the laws and force all the states to comply?
 
digsbe said:
Should social/ethical issues be decided by the states or by the federal government? Should states make laws in regards to abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of certain drugs, and other issues of the like? Or should the federal government make the laws and force all the states to comply?
Click to expand...
I would have to go with the third option.

In my mind, that would mean a set of basic guidelines on the federal level, with the states then having the option to expand on those, and perhaps set the standards within them.
 
digsbe said:
Should social/ethical issues be decided by the states or by the federal government? Should states make laws in regards to abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of certain drugs, and other issues of the like? Or should the federal government make the laws and force all the states to comply?
Click to expand...

It should obviously be a mixture of the two, because of the vast array of social issues. However, if you ask where most of the issues should be decided, I would say the states.

On a real technical level, the federal government is needed to supply services that could not efficiently be provided by the states, or for services where it is inefficient for the states to run them because of externalities.

Besides that, the more services at the local level the better because of different preferences people have for policies.

and with that said... since social policies normally do not have economics of scale or externalities, the state level, or even the local level should decide most of them.


It is just important to remember that if something is considered a "right" by a vast majority of people, such as not being a slave... then the federal government needs to enforce a certain ruling on that.
 
Depends on the issue.

It's unethical to print your own money.

The Constitution grants the Federal government sole authority on this matter.

The Constitution does not grant women a blanket freedom to murder their unborn children. Under the Tenth Amendment that means the freedom to murder unborn children is regulated by the states. All states permitting the murder of unborn children are immoral and unethical.

As far as same-sex marriage goes, that prohibiting this is plain violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and, once a state does legalize same sex marriage, the other states must recognize that marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. At the same time, all persons objecting to same-sex marriage cannot be required to have one, thus removing any moral or ethical burden on the states.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter who makes the decisions as long as they're the right decisions.
 
spud_meister said:
the the crux though, who's standards are right
Click to expand...

Mine, of course. Noone else's standards matter, except as tools or obstacles in the course of realizing my own. After all, don't you pursue your own ideology in the absolute conviction that it is what is best for the people you care about?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Mine, of course. Noone else's standards matter, except as tools or obstacles in the course of realizing my own. After all, don't you pursue your own ideology in the absolute conviction that it is what is best for the people you care about?
Click to expand...

and thus a dictator is born:2razz:.

the morality and such of issues should be decided at the social mean, not at an individuals own personal view.

and whilst i believe my ideologies are the best, i do not think them infallible
 
spud_meister said:
the morality and such of issues should be decided at the social mean, not at an individuals own personal view.
Click to expand...

So the majority is always right? If their ideas and beliefs contradict yours-- if they grossly violate your moral values-- they should get their way because they're the mainstream?

I can't accept that. History is full of too many cases of mainstream society holding and promoting moral values that I simply cannot abide-- and the people, by and large, are happy to believe in whatever they're told to. If they're going to blindly follow whoever appears to be in charge, if their beliefs are so easily shaped by others, then there's absolutely no reason to respect them.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
So the majority is always right? If their ideas and beliefs contradict yours-- if they grossly violate your moral values-- they should get their way because they're the mainstream?
Click to expand...
well i believe that that is better than the ideas of a single person ruling over and violating the moral values of the majority.
I can't accept that. History is full of too many cases of mainstream society holding and promoting moral values that I simply cannot abide-- and the people, by and large, are happy to believe in whatever they're told to. If they're going to blindly follow whoever appears to be in charge, if their beliefs are so easily shaped by others, then there's absolutely no reason to respect them.
Click to expand...

history is also full of people who held sway over large populations and enforced their own moral code upon them, often through violence and fear.

i believe that it is better to have society follow the majority than society to be forced by the minority.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It doesn't matter who makes the decisions as long as they're the right decisions.
Click to expand...
sometimes it's true, sometimes it's false. If this was the case, I doubt we would have need of a seperation of powers between federal and states.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So you trade 1 tyrant for many tyrants?

How can that be morally superior?
Click to expand...

who said anything about morally superior?

and isn't many tyrants the idea behind democracy?

i just think it would be better if the state's morals reflect the majority of the population as opposed to a single persons
 
spud_meister said:
who said anything about morally superior?

and isn't many tyrants the idea behind democracy?

i just think it would be better if the state's morals reflect the majority of the population as opposed to a single persons
Click to expand...

Why is it better?

What does the majority know that a single person doesn't?
You know a majority authorized the death of Socrates because they didn't like what he was saying.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
So the majority is always right? If their ideas and beliefs contradict yours-- if they grossly violate your moral values-- they should get their way because they're the mainstream?

I can't accept that. History is full of too many cases of mainstream society holding and promoting moral values that I simply cannot abide-- and the people, by and large, are happy to believe in whatever they're told to. If they're going to blindly follow whoever appears to be in charge, if their beliefs are so easily shaped by others, then there's absolutely no reason to respect them.
Click to expand...

You are right that the majority is commonly wrong, but I am just wondering exactly what your alternative is to make decisions for society.

You can have different views then society, but it is impractical for society to conform to what a minority groups believes too much. You don't need to respect them, but I am sure you understand that majority opinion (even just through representatives) is the best way to make collective decisions.
 
nerv14 said:
You are right that the majority is commonly wrong, but I am just wondering exactly what your alternative is to make decisions for society.
Click to expand...

Me. Me or my appointed representatives. Or for that matter anyone who, coincidentally or otherwise, implements policies I support. I don't care how it happens and I don't care how many people get hurt in the process-- unless the political process itself is actually more dangerous than the bad policies in question, in which case that needs to be fixed first.

nerv14 said:
You don't need to respect them, but I am sure you understand that majority opinion (even just through representatives) is the best way to make collective decisions.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. If the majority is retarded, then majority opinion is proportionally retarded, and any process by which retarded-- inefficient, counterproductive, and/or morally misguided-- opinions are made into law is obviously not the best way to govern. The best way to govern is through any system in which stupid ideas are prevented from becoming law and in which effective solutions are rewarded.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Me. Me or my appointed representatives. Or for that matter anyone who, coincidentally or otherwise, implements policies I support. I don't care how it happens and I don't care how many people get hurt in the process-- unless the political process itself is actually more dangerous than the bad policies in question, in which case that needs to be fixed first.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my point of what alternative is there to some process of majority rule.

Sure, we all want the political process to have results that suit us, but that is not practical, unless you are a dictator.

Are you proposing that the only just society is one where you are the ultimate leader? It sounds like that you are.

The problem with that is that there is no checks to make sure that your decisions are helpful for society. Additionally, there is a huge conflict of interest where you would put your own interest above the society, its human nature.

I can go into the reasons against dictatorship if that is what you really support.

No, I don't. If the majority is retarded, then majority opinion is proportionally retarded, and any process by which retarded-- inefficient, counterproductive, and/or morally misguided-- opinions are made into law is obviously not the best way to govern. The best way to govern is through any system in which stupid ideas are prevented from becoming law and in which effective solutions are rewarded.
Click to expand...
But how do you prevent stupid ideas from becoming law?

The choice is either dictatorship, Constitutional restraints on democracy, or democracy.

Even if you have a Constitution, majority opinion can still change the Constitution.
 
There should be some mixture of the two. Issues which have a national scope should be dealt with on a national level, and issues which have a more localized or regional scope should be dealt with by the states.
 
molten_dragon said:
There should be some mixture of the two. Issues which have a national scope should be dealt with on a national level, and issues which have a more localized or regional scope should be dealt with by the states.
Click to expand...
Or counties, townships, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom